| Summary: | 依據世界貿易組織（WTO）估計，各國政府部門採購規模約占有其國家國內生產毛額 GDP的10﹪－15﹪，目前兩岸政府採購規模於陸續實施「政府採購法」之後，我國政府採購總額迄至2005年單一年度已達到5595億元，中國政府採購規模增加趨勢更為驚人，依初期試辦之政府採購暫行管理辦法規定等試點辦理之政府採購規模於1998年僅達31億元人民幣，至2003年其「政府採購法」實施後政府採購範圍和規模迅速擴大，迄至2005年中國政府採購規模已高達2927.6億元，但占其全國GDP的比重仍僅有1.6%。對於我國廠商而言，中國此一快速成長中之經濟體，其政府採購市場相對較無語言和文化之障礙，如能熟悉中國的政府採購機制，其政府採購市場可謂是台灣廠商可及性最高的大餅。從而將海峽兩岸政府採購招標階段之各種爭議類型與特有之行政救濟處理機制放在同一個制度平台上作比較，對於台灣廠商在參與國內政府採購或前進中國政府採購市場都將有更實際的幫助。
我國政府採購法係於1998年5月27日公布並於1999年5月27日正式實施，實施七年多以來，已發生之政府採購招標階段爭議截至2005年12月底止，僅行政院公共工程委員會受理之採購申訴案件累計總收案件數已達3,111件，中國政府採購法則於2003年1月1日始正式施行，因實施時間較短，目前尚無爭議案件具體統計數據，惟相關政府採購爭議案件見諸於出版之專業書籍者已有43件指標性之案例，各人民法院亦逐漸出現政府採購相關判決。本研究範圍主要將針對海峽兩岸政府採購程序中，與參與採購廠商關聯最深之「招標階段」爭議處理機制部分，就現行兩岸政府採購及招標投標等政策法規進行深入之比較研究，並對於上述兩岸政府採購法實施後，所陸續發生之招標階段爭議較具代表性之案例，依其相近類型進行比較分析，以期全面性的瞭解兩岸政府採購招標階段爭議類型及專設之行政救濟處理機制的利弊得失。
在探討過程中，由於兩岸的政府採購機制立法依據來源即有所差異，台灣地區政府採購機制規定主要來自於世界貿易組織WTO的「政府採購協定（GPA）」，中國政府採購法則以聯合國「貿易法委員會貨物、工程和服務採購示範法」為基礎，但也納入「政府採購協定（GPA）」若干立法精神。兩岸政府採購機制之立法依據雖有若干相似之處，但因應各自區域內原有法律體系和經濟環境狀況，仍發展出不同類型的招標機制，本研究對於兩岸政府採購立法過程參照之前述相關國際規範，亦將予以比較分析，以祈自立法來源找出兩岸政府採購立法精神及機制設計之基本差異。
=== According to estimate of the World Trade Organization (WTO), the government procurement scale of each country takes up about 10%-15% of its GDP. After the government procurement law was initiated on both sides of the strait, Taiwan’s total government procurement amounted to NT$ 559.5 billion in year 2005 alone; in contrast, China had a more amazing rapid growth in procurement scale. In 1998 when Temporary Regulations on Government Procurement was initiated, the procurement scale reached only 3.1 billion RMB. Since the “Government Procurement Law” took effect in 2003, government procurement scope and scale have expanded rapidly. In 2005, China's government procurement scale amounted up to 292.76 billion RMB, yet taking up only 1.6% of its GDP. As a fast growing economy, China’s government procurement market demonstrates fewer language and cultural barriers to manufactures in Taiwan. Familiarization with China’s government procurement mechanism will help provide most access to its government procurement market for Taiwanese manufacturers. Moreover, comparing research into cross-strait government procurement dispute types and unique administrative relief institution during tendering stage on the same level will be of practical help for Taiwanese manufacturers in taking part in domestic government procurement or moving on to China’s government procurement market.
Taiwan’s Government Procurement Act was promulgated on May 27, 1998 and put into effect on the same date of the following year. Over the past seven executing years, regarding government procurement dispute during tendering stage, the Public Construction Commission of Executive Yuan alone had received a total of 3111 procurement complaint cases up till the end of December in 2005. On the other hand, China’s Government Procurement Law came into force from January 1, 2003. Due to its shorter enforcement period, specific statistics of dispute cases are still unavailable. However, there have already been 43 index cases published in specialized books, and government-procurement-related sentences gradually arise in people’s courts of law. This study aims to make a deep and thorough research into cross-strait government policies and regulations on procurement and tender system with respect to dispute-solving mechanism during tendering stage most connected to procurement-involving manufacturers, and an analysis of representative cases of dispute during tendering stage according to their similar types after enforcement of cross-strait government procurement laws. This is done for the purpose of completely understanding cross-strait government procurement dispute types during tendering stage and advantages and disadvantages of unique administrative relief institution.
In the course of discussion, we found differences in legislative basis for procurement policies of governments on both sides of the strait. Taiwan’s government procurement policy originates from “Agreement on Government Procurement” (GPA) of the WTO, while China's Government Procurement Law is based on “Model Law on Procurement of Goods, Construction and Services” of the United Nations Commission of International Trade Law, yet also involves some essential spirit of GPA. Despite some similarities of legislative basis between the government procurement policies on both sides, different types of tendering mechanisms have developed in accordance with original legal systems and economic conditions in their respective regions. This study will also compare and analyze the legislative process of government procurement on both sides by referring to the aforementioned international regulations, with an aim to, from legislative origin, locate the fundamental differences of legislative spirit and policy design of government procurement on both sides.
|
|---|
